The Army's $10M Spy Bat Still Too Big

Lucas123 writes "The University of Michigan's Center for Objective Microelectronics and Biomimetic Advanced Technology (COM-BAT) is working on building a robot bat that would perform long-range reconnaissance for the U.S. Army, but U.Mich is currently struggling with miniaturizing components in order to make the bat small enough to be stealthy. 'The focus is to shrink down many electronics that while currently available would only be good if the US Army wanted, say, a 12-foot spy-bat.' Some components need to be 1,000 times smaller than they currently are. The Army's $10 million grant proposal calls for the bat to be six inches in length, weigh four ounces and use just one watt of power. The bat is supposed to be powered by a lithium-ion battery, charged by solar and wind energy, as well as simple vibrations."

Comments

Vampire?

[cayenne8]

Why not make a requirment to be a vampire bat?

It could feed on blood...and thus hurt the enemy, and generate power for long missions. It would be cool too, in that it would only come out at night, and could only be killed with a wooden stake.

:-)

Re:Vampire?

[Z00L00K]

And why not add some strain of Rabies to it while you are at it then?

Re:Vampire?

[Brian Gordon]

You hardly need some advanced chemical warfare; the thing is 12 feet across, you can just armor plate it and use the godzilla strategy.. just fly around the city ramming things and thowing people around like Nazgul in the LOTR movies. They won't be able to shoot it down because it's large and radioactive.

Re:Vampire?

[guruevi]

Not a vampire, but the Mothman. Scare people to death and give in to the conspiracy theorists.

Re:Vampire?

[Cousarr]

Or make it a vampire bat in the sense it lands on local power lines and leeches in order to recharge.

Re:Vampire?

[kextyn]

Not only did you not RTFA, you didn't even make it through the summary. The Army wants a 6" bat.

Re:Vampire?

[Orange Crush]

He had to at least read the summary--that's how he knew they could build a 12 foot long bat. His point is that just because the army says they want a 6inch bat, *HE* wants a 12 foot bat.

Re:Vampire?

[flyingsquid]

We were somewhere around Barstow on the edge of the desert when the drugs began to take hold. I remember saying something like, "I feel a bit lightheaded; maybe you should drive . . ." And suddenly there was a terrible roar all around us and the sky was full of what looked like huge bats, all swooping and screeching and diving around the car, which was going about 100 miles an hour with the top down to Las Vegas. And a voice was screaming: "Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?"

Then it was quiet again. My attorney had taken his shirt off and was pouring beer on his chest, to facilitate the tanning process. "What the hell are you yelling about," he muttered, staring up at the sun with his eyes closed and covered with wraparound Spanish sunglasses. "Never mind," I said. "It's your turn to drive." I hit the brakes and aimed the Great Red Shark toward the shoulder of the highway. No point mentioning those bats, I thought. The poor bastard will see them soon enough.

---Hunter S. Thompson, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas

Re:Vampire?

[cayenne8]

"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me."

-Hunter S. Thompson

Hmm...perhaps this belonged on the article about Addiction to video games.....

Re:Vampire?

[bughunter]

Actually, I have worked on DARPA programs that include concepts for micro and nano air vehicles that parasitically "feed" from AC power lines and RF transmissions.

I'm confident that this Army contract has similar ideas in play.

Re:Vampire?

[Anonymous Coward]

*I'd* like a 12-inch pianist.

Re:Vampire?

[3vi1]

>> Why not make a requirment to be a vampire bat?

Because then you're fighting an enemy with an army of vampires.

I know... I know...

-J

Re:Vampire?

[Anonymous Coward]

Barstow is closer to Area 51 than most places...

Re:Vampire?

[glittalogik]

His name's Arthur.

Re:Vampire?

[instarx]

You hardly need some advanced chemical warfare; the thing is 12 feet across, you can just armor plate it and use the godzilla strategy.. just fly around the city ramming things and thowing people around like Nazgul in the LOTR movies. They won't be able to shoot it down because it's large and radioactive.

You're confused...having much experience being scared silly by 50's Japanese monster movies when I was a kid I know this is really the Rodan strategy, not the Godzilla strategy.

Re:Vampire?

[electrictroy]

This Stealth Bat seems like a HUGE waste of taxpayer dollars.

Haven't they noticed that the government is almost 1000 trillion dollars in debt, and on the verge of bankruptcy? It'd be wiser (and cheaper) to just pay-off the enemy in the same way the mob pays off its rivals.

Re:Vampire?

[rifter]

Or make it a vampire bat in the sense it lands on local power lines and leeches in order to recharge.

That model will starve to death in the places we most want it to go, like Afghanistan. Speaking of which, it had better have really good batteries because it won't easily pick up solar power within the caves it probably needs to explore.

Re:Vampire?

[superpulpsicle]

In other news the $10 trillion Operation-Robo-bat was spoiled when a really horny male bat mistakened it for a female bat.

Sounds like a comic book prop

[jollyreaper]

Quick, Robin! Hand me the bat-bat!

But seriously, why go with an ornithopter design? There's that excellent quote about AI's, "The question of whether a computer thinks like a person is as relevant as whether a submarine swims like a fish."

Would not a conventional ultralight drone with battery-operated propeller work more effectively than flappy wings?

Re:Sounds like a comic book prop

[AKAImBatman]

But seriously, why go with an ornithopter design?

Stealth. It needs to act (at least somewhat) like a real bat or it will be detected. Real bats are ornithopters. Ergo, the spy craft must be an ornithopter.

Re:Sounds like a comic book prop

[Anonymous Coward]

No doubt they would like their spy drone to be easily mistook for an animal, as opposed to a spy drone. Typical spy drones tend to look like.. well.. typical spy drones, so if they're spotted, no one really needs to guess what its purpose is.

Re:Sounds like a comic book prop

[Tablizer]

Would not a conventional ultralight drone with battery-operated propeller work more effectively than flappy wings?

Then it would stand out. If it looks like an ordinary bat, then nobody is gonna touch it.

I remember reading about the experiment of spy cats with mind-control hardware in their brain. The test cats got dizzy and wondered out into the street, and millions of dollars was suddenly squashed. A 10-million-dollar robo-bat may be flying around and suddenly be eaten by a falcon or something.

Re:Sounds like a comic book prop

[Bobb9000]

Depending on the wing design and control software, ornithopters can actually be a lot more maneuverable than fixed wing aircraft. If they want an ability to go indoors, fixed-wing is pretty much out, and helicopters both burn energy like crazy and tend to a bit more obvious.

Re:Sounds like a comic book prop

[Z00L00K]

Not really necessary to build a complete one then - remote control a bird instead. Pigeons have great stamina and they are often resilient to stress.

Disadvantage is that they may be captured and eaten.

Another catch is the animal rights activists that will have their say in it too when you implant your electrodes into the pigeon's brain.

For greater payload you may want to use a falcon or an albatross.

There is an advantage with flexible wings, but it's also a lot more complex which means that a fixed-wing device would often be better. If you can't make it stealthy you may use the power of confusion instead. Make a large range of different styles - this means that those that you want to watch can't decide who is watching them.

Re:Sounds like a comic book prop

[hairyfeet]

Then why not a hawk or one of the other birds that can float as well as flap? Plus using a bat will pretty much mean night missions,as it is very rare to see a bat at 1PM on a sunny day,whereas we see so many birds out at all hours that I doubt anyone would notice another hawk/sparrow/crow sized bird flying around. I have a feeling they chose bat because it would look cooler,and thus would be an easier sell.

Re:Sounds like a comic book prop

[mckinnsb]

The additional benefit of a bat-like design (as opposed to a pigeon) is that they are nocturnal - so a spy-bat flying around at night would be more difficult to discern from a real bat as opposed to a spy-pigeon from a real pigeon. Bats are also nearly ubiquitous in the earth's ecology, making them ideal for spying anywhere.

Another plus involves the behavior of a bat. A bat sitting still in a tree or a cave wouldn't be considered "abnormal" by a casual observer- and most people are honestly too afraid of them to go up to it and examine it closely. Especially if its hidden amongst a group of "real bats", which would only add to the camouflage aspect.

A perfect night spy. Of course, why not just install a bio-tech camera in a real bat? I'm sure we might see that someday.

Re:Sounds like a comic book prop

[192939495969798999]

Those mosquito helicopters are like 20 bucks and do the same thing, sounds to me like a pork barrel to fund something else. For 10 million, couldn't you just tape a dvr to a real bat and pay off PETA to leave you alone?

Re:Sounds like a comic book prop

[smackt4rd]

Might be tough to carry a live bird around with electrodes in its brain through swamps, and such. Don't think that would last too long. :) Also, I don't think there's many albatros' in iraq or Afganistan or wherever, but bats are all over the place.

Re:Sounds like a comic book prop

[Bobb9000]

If you want a military recon drone that only has enough battery capacity to fly for ten minutes and can barely lift more than its own weight before you add the camera and long-range transceiver, sure. 10 million isn't out of line to do what the military's asking for, here, because they're asking for quite a bit. As for using real bats, interfacing control circuitry into a brain to a sufficient degree to get more than "turn right, now turn left" is a hell of a lot more complicated of a problem then miniaturizing batteries and electronics packages.

Re:Sounds like a comic book prop

[Bombula]

It needs to act (at least somewhat) like a real bat or it will be detected

Boy, this will be a challenging problem for enemy combatants to solve. I can see it now:

BBC News January 2013: "U.S. begins use of COM-BAT robotic bat-like surveilance device."

BBC News January, 2014: "Scientists report inexplicable collapse of local bird and bat populations over the last year."

Re:Sounds like a comic book prop

[robertjw]

There's that excellent quote about AI's, "The question of whether a computer thinks like a person is as relevant as whether a submarine swims like a fish."

Not sure exactly what you are getting at with that comment, but IIRC, there were some significant advancements made when submarine designers started studying fish. Early subs were designed as surface boats, but in the 50s, with the advent of the nuclear power plant, subs were redesigned with lessons learned from marine animals, resulting in much more efficient performance underwater.

Re:Sounds like a comic book prop

[Auntie Virus]

For greater payload you may want to use a falcon or an albatross.
Do you get wafers with it?

Re:Sounds like a comic book prop

[jollyreaper]

There's that excellent quote about AI's, "The question of whether a computer thinks like a person is as relevant as whether a submarine swims like a fish."

Not sure exactly what you are getting at with that comment, but IIRC, there were some significant advancements made when submarine designers started studying fish. Early subs were designed as surface boats, but in the 50s, with the advent of the nuclear power plant, subs were redesigned with lessons learned from marine animals, resulting in much more efficient performance underwater. True, but fish also lack propellers.

Re:Sounds like a comic book prop

[tikal2k]

A bat flapping around is really very conspicious because of the way it flaps around. Also, they need to equip the solar-powered bat with solar-powered recon devices and solar-powered flashlights.

Re:Sounds like a comic book prop

[RKBA]

It needs to act (at least somewhat) like a real bat or it will be detected. Real bats are ornithopters. Ergo, the spy craft must be an ornithopter.

They had better be painted black and only fly at night, otherwise: PULL.... Bang! One more ornithopter down, and a lot more fun than shooting at clay pigeons. Even a .22 rifle with a ten cent birdshot cartridge should be able to take one of those $10M suckers down easily.

Re:Sounds like a comic book prop

[Amazing Proton Boy]

I don't think so. If it flies anything like a real bat it will be very hard to shoot down. When I was young and dumb some buddies and I tried to shoot some bats with shotguns. We spent a good hour and a half and a few hundred rounds and never hit one. Bats don't fly in nice straight lines. The kind of flop and twitch around the sky in very erratic patterns. The also seemed to sense right when we were going to fire and would rapidly jink. To sum up, shooting bats is HARD.

Re:Sounds like a comic book prop

[rifter]

I think that a bird with a weird hat on its head will be a little too obvious.

For greater payload you may want to use a falcon or an albatross.

In other news, Alka-Seltzer has been designated a chemical weapon of mass destruction used only by terrorists by Homeland Security!. Posession is illegal, stockpiles are being confiscated, and the people who run the factories that make it are already on their way to Gitmo. :D

Re:Sounds like a comic book prop

[rifter]

I have a feeling they chose bat because it would look cooler,and thus would be an easier sell.

Bats and terrorists like to live in caves. Plus bats are small and people don't like to touch them.

Re:Sounds like a comic book prop

[hairyfeet]

If you ever lived in the country and tried to get a hawk or an owl out of a barb wire fence you wouldn't be too quick to touch them either.I can't picture someone going "here birdie birdie" to a big ugly crow or hawk. Personally I still think a crow or hawk or owl would have worked better and the gliding would have used less energy Plus an owl with those large eyes would have been better for cameras.

And as someone who has lived in the country I can tell you a bird will go where the bugs are,including caves. About 10 miles from where I'm sitting there are a series of caves carved out by the White river,and the ones that aren't filled with bats are filled with birds.The river makes a great source of food,while the caves make a great place to nest.I still think they chose a bat because it would look and sound cooler in the powerpoint.But as always this is just my 02c on the subject,YMMV.

Re:Sounds like a comic book prop

[mfnickster]

'Course you don't get bloody wafers with it!!!

It's a bleedin' seabird, innit? It's bleedin' seabird flavour!

COM-BAT?

[Ryukotsusei]

Okay, this is taking military acronyms way too far..

Re:COM-BAT?

[Asmor]

Just erase the C and write a W in to turn it into a WOM-BAT.

Too obscure?

Re:COM-BAT?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly... where's the Biometrics part? Does it take fingerprints, capture irises...? Facial photo maybe... WTF... They should have made the B - Bionic instead (or more appropriately BIG...) ah but they had to play the "Biometrics" card.

Re:COM-BAT?

[morgan_greywolf]

Just wait until you hear about their next project, the Battle Ordnance for Military Blasting (BOMB).

Re:COM-BAT?

[rifter]

Exactly... where's the Biometrics part? Does it take fingerprints, capture irises...? Facial photo maybe... WTF... They should have made the B - Bionic instead (or more appropriately BIG...) ah but they had to play the "Biometrics" card.

Maybe the military wants face-recognition software involved in the mix. There has been a lot of talk about using that software to find terrorists, and IIRC even in conjunction with things like the Predator drones we currently use for surveillance. (yeah I know the software/hardware for this is pretty sorry right now, but the gummint likes it). They might also have fingerprint recognition to determine whether the bat bites you when you try to hold it. :D

Re:COM-BAT?

[LeafOnTheWind]

Erase the -B and put in P-R and you turn it into a WOMP-RAT. Plus, you only need to shrink it by a half now, since all the literature that I've heard says they're not much larger than 2 meters across. The downside is that you may lose a lot to some smart-ass kids who like to "bullseye em" in their T-16s.

I'm still working on my robot Jew...

[Anonymous Coward]

...but need to miniaturize the 12-foot nose.

Anyone out there have $10M to donate to help me finalize my Hebraic robot overlord that will eat lox and run my diamond store for me?

Magic Charge

[AKAImBatman]

The bat is supposed to be powered by a lithium-ion battery, charged by solar and wind energy, as well as simple vibrations.

Why don't they just ask for Zero Point Energy while they're at it? The "bat" is going to be working against the wind, generating vibrations, and (presumably) flying at night. Which makes all those charge methods about as useful as a screen door on a submarine. Why don't they ask for something that follows the KISS principle and just pull the battery pack to charge it?

Re:Magic Charge

[Bobb9000]

Since the article says it's supposed to be long-range, my guess is that the mission profile would be to sit somewhere out of the way and charge during the day, then do its recon at night. All of those methods are very useful, because it means the drone could stay in an area and continue to operate without human intervention nearly indefinitely.

Re:Magic Charge

[gnick]

Those are a couple of the major hurdles to jump. I think that it may be easier to train real bats and learn to communicate with them so that you can debrief them when they return from the field...

Re:Magic Charge

[timeOday]

The "bat" is going to be working against the wind, generating vibrations, and (presumably) flying at night. Which makes all those charge methods about as useful as a screen door on a submarine.

You are assuming the battery would only charge while the bat is flying. I can't imagine why they would do that.

Re:Magic Charge

[AKAImBatman]

You are assuming the battery would only charge while the bat is flying.

That I am. Because otherwise I don't see the point. Rather than add the weight and complexity of all those charging methods, why not pull the battery pack out and plug it into a charger? If finding a power source is a problem, make the charger plug into the cigarette lighter in the Humvees. (Or whatever other power plug the military might be equipping their vehicles with.) Much simpler, less expensive, and more reliable.

Of course, I've seen enough of these descriptions to know that the military sends out requests for SciFi technology all the time. They don't actually expect anyone to meet these goals. What they expect is for the contractors to push themselves as close as they can possibly get. The contractor that gets the closest gets the contract.

Re:Magic Charge

[electricbern]

Well, they could use gravity as a way to charge the bat. So while it is hanging upside-down waiting for further instructions it is actually charging.
Of course energy-sucking gigantic vampire bats that will leech on unsuspecting power grids sounds far more interesting.

Re:Magic Charge

[jank1887]

"Because otherwise I don't see the point"

long range spy. i.e., not a "toss 'em up in the air, let him circle around a few times, and then he can come home for dinner" kind of drone. Should we hang a sign around his neck saying: "Excuse me, Mr. Adversary, sir. Would you kindly plug me in to the nearest cigarette lighter? I can't keep spying on you if you don't. Pretty please?"

The goal is to operate for extended duration away from friendly operators. A longer mission time equals a longer stored energy payload, or some ability to recharge. Since the former is counterproductive to a light weight system, you opt for the latter. Since recharge cannot rely on an external function (someone plugging it into a HMMWV, etc.), recharge has to be internal and passive. Hence hoping for solar, thermal, vibrational scavenge, etc.

They can't meet the spec, but that doesn't mean the goals weren't picked for a reason.

Re:Magic Charge

[inflamed]

Yo do realize, that for gravity to charge the bat, the bat has to relinquish some potential energy... you know... fall? At some point, it will have to somehow fly back up to its original elevation to continue its mission using exactly the same amount of potential energy it relinquished when it fell ... with the less-than 100% energy conversion taking a toll, of course.

Re:Magic Charge

[Joe The Dragon]

A ZPM is too big to fit in it and we have better uses for them.

Re:Magic Charge

[AKAImBatman]

long range spy

Save for the fact that it's an utterly ridiculous goal. We don't even have short range UAVs that meet these specs. Yet the military wants to jump straight to a magical robot that's 6 inches wide and can handle long-range missions? Worse yet, we don't have UAVs that can land and takeoff unattended inside enemy territory. Yet the military thinks that this magical ornithopter is going to manage takeoff and landing unattended? (Which is significantly complicated by its wing design.) On top of that, the military really expects that these things will lay out in the open (where they can get sunlight) and go completely undetected?

There are so many WTFs in their long-range reconnaissance plan, that it sounds like something Dan Brown wrote.

Re:Magic Charge

[Bobb9000]

we don't have UAVs that can land and takeoff unattended inside enemy territory This isn't a technological issue. We have plenty of designs capable of taking off and landing autonomously wherever it's needed; I don't know whether any are currently deployed, but there's no reason we couldn't.

Yet the military thinks that this magical ornithopter is going to manage takeoff and landing unattended? (Which is significantly complicated by its wing design.) While this is complicated by its wing design compared to a helicopter, it's actually easier compared to a fixed-wing drone. You don't need an extended runway; hell, those little WowWee dragonfly RC toys can take off from ground in about five feet.

On top of that, the military really expects that these things will lay out in the open (where they can get sunlight) and go completely undetected? On rooftops, in trees, in forested clearings or desert away from people - yes, I think it could find places out of the way to sit and recharge during the day.

You're right that those specs aren't possible with current technology, but I suspect that's why they're giving the University of Michigan $10 million to try to improve the current technology.

Re:Magic Charge

[clbyjack81]

Why don't they just ask for Zero Point Energy while they're at it?

Zero point energy is simply the vibrational energy that an atom or molecule contains after having been cooled to the unattainable temperature of 0K. Despite science fiction talking about ZPE as some magical power source, it really is just the miniscule amount of energy that exists in a systems ground state. It is unusable as a power source for anything since it is by definition the ultimate cold sink in a heat engine.

Why yes, I am a chemist.

Re:Magic Charge

[AKAImBatman]

We have plenty of designs capable of taking off and landing autonomously wherever it's needed

Taking off and landing automatically on runways. Taking off and landing from regular terrain is a lot more difficult. Think about the HUDs we have on modern jet aircraft. They're lining up their approach based on the lighting and radar information the runway and ground control is feeding back to them. Give the ILS an open field and it will choke.

hell, those little WowWee dragonfly RC toys can take off from ground in about five feet.

Taking off is easy. Landing is not. The most common result? Capsizing. And when your $10 million toy capsizes, it's not so easy to get it back off the ground.

On rooftops, in trees, in forested clearings or desert away from people - yes, I think it could find places out of the way to sit and recharge during the day.

Wishful thinking. I'd like to see their toy make regular landings on level ground. Until that's solved, rooftops and trees are out. And forested clearings are exposed areas where the enemy might spot your drone. (Assuming you can even find a forested clearing in our current theaters of operation. ;-))

I suspect that's why they're giving the University of Michigan $10 million to try to improve the current technology.

$10 million is pocket change. This type of project could easily result in a craft that would cost $10 million a piece for mass manufacture.

Re:Magic Charge

[AKAImBatman]

Despite science fiction talking about ZPE as some magical power source

Congratulations, you've vetted out my point. ;-)

Now where's my magic charger? I need it to power my flying car^H^H^H bat!

Re:Magic Charge

[Bobb9000]

Taking off and landing automatically on runways. Have you heard of these magical new devices called helicopters? Beyond that, one of the benefits of ornithopters over fixed-wing aircraft is that they have the potential to take off like birds do; i.e., almost vertically.

The most common result? Capsizing. Have you ever actually used one of those RC dragonflies? I've landed them plenty of times without capsizing, and when I have flubbed the landing, all I had to do was flip it over and it was ready to go again. Do you really think that they couldn't manage an autorighting system with $10 million to play with?

I'd like to see their toy make regular landings on level ground. Until that's solved, rooftops and trees are out. And forested clearings are exposed areas where the enemy might spot your drone. (Assuming you can even find a forested clearing in our current theaters of operation. ;-)) Setting aside the landing issue, since many designs (yes, not traditional fixed-wing, but that's why the military is looking at alternatives) can make regular landings, if you land far enough away from populated areas the risk will be low. And I mentioned deserts as well as forests, if you'll notice.

While yes, 10M isn't that much by the standards of many military devices, for the sorts of prototyping and tech development we're talking, over the next five years, that's not an unreasonable sum, especially since I'm sure they're putting lots more money into other groups researching very relevant tech. I also significantly doubt that the military is looking for a 10M a pop recon drone. There's too much risk of damage. We're not talking about a Predator, here, which is the size of a Cessna (and which, btw, only costs about $3 million), and which only has to worry about AA fire.

Re:Magic Charge

[AKAImBatman]

Beyond that, one of the benefits of ornithopters over fixed-wing aircraft is that they have the potential to take off like birds do; i.e., almost vertically.

They can take off almost vertically. They cannot land so easily. Flapping the wings produces forward momentum. Birds are able to slow themselves and make ornithopter landings without a runway for two major reasons:

1. They can warp their wings to change the direction of thrust as well as the amount of thrust applied with a sweep of the wing. This allows them to cancel their forward momentum suddenly, thus making a near-vertical landing. Our mechanical creations have a hard time replicating the flesh and blood aspects of birds. For one thing, warping a wing places stress on the rigid components and thus reduces reliability. Birds (and humans!) have similar issues, but their self-repair systems keep things in tip-top shape.

2. Birds have an advanced landing gear that allows them to grab on to protrusions such as branches, wires, and other types of outcroppings. An ornithopter is likely to have skids, which are nowhere near as well adapted.

Have you ever actually used one of those RC dragonflies?

Sure. I've even used remote controlled helicopters.

I've landed them plenty of times without capsizing

Key word: I've

When you've got a UAV, the software has to do the tricky work. Even with remote control, it's difficult to execute a landing with only a camera view of what's going on. Without that human element, the chances of a failed landing skyrocket.

And I mentioned deserts as well as forests, if you'll notice.

Deserts are actually worse. Putting aside how easy it is for a 6 inch ornithopter to sink into the sand, it will be incredibly easy to spot for anyone on patrol in the area.

all I had to do was flip it over and it was ready to go again.

What do you do when there's no one around? Some of the most advanced drones in existence (e.g. the Mars rovers) become useless if they capsize.

Do you really think that they couldn't manage an autorighting system with $10 million to play with?

No, not really. You're glossing over the difficulty in creating a reliable autorighting system. Not to mention the expense of the many other components.

While yes, 10M isn't that much by the standards of many military devices, for the sorts of prototyping and tech development we're talking, over the next five years, that's not an unreasonable sum

It is indeed an unreasonable sum. They're talking about miniaturizing a 12 foot wide, complex piece of automated technology into a 6 inch ornithopter. Do you have any idea how much fab costs are for advanced microprocessors, battery technology, custom solar panels, lightweight flexible materials, and other technologies required to make this thing a reality?

I can tell you, just one of those technologies would easily sap up that $10 million in development costs.

Re:Magic Charge

[Bobb9000]

You seem to assuming a very simple wing structure here. Even without warpable wings (which can be implemented using flexible materials), you can make the flapping hinge adjustable to change the sweep pattern. While I don't know of any existing implementations of a hover ability, there's a lot of work being done on the subject and it certainly isn't impossible. I think we're back to the same issue as before: it can't be done off-the-shelf, but the hurdles aren't impossible to get over with some more research. Like the research the military's funding here.

When you've got a UAV, the software has to do the tricky work. Even with remote control, it's difficult to execute a landing with only a camera view of what's going on. Without that human element, the chances of a failed landing skyrocket. If all you have is a camera, yes. When you add in a 3-axis accelerometer and infrared or ultrasonic proximity sensors, it becomes a lot more reasonable. Software is actually pretty good at doing things like landing aircraft, it's the inadequate sensor data that's the problem. That's why, I admit, landing in trees might be farfetched for the moment, but all the others are entirely plausible.

Deserts are actually worse. Putting aside how easy it is for a 6 inch ornithopter to sink into the sand, it will be incredibly easy to spot for anyone on patrol in the area. Yes, if there happens to be someone on patrol in the particularly secluded patch of desert you chose, and they don't assume it's a piece of trash or, for that matter, a dead bat. And why would a six-inch ornithopter be in particular danger of sinking? Something light but with a large surface area is in less danger, not more. At no point do they say that the thing will be completely autonomous, just that it will be able to navigate on its own. I don't doubt that the commanders will maintain an ability to switch to manual flight control.

And as regarding the money issue, I still think my point stands, but if you read the effing press release that TFA is based on, you'll see that UMich is just using its 10M to work on miniaturizing the electronics; there are at least two more universities involved in the overall project, each of which I would guess have their own grants. http://www.ns.umich.edu/htdocs/releases/story.php?id=6409

On an unrelated note, I'd really like to know who made those 3d models, and who made the ludicrous decision to put them up with the press release. There are so many problems with the design of that model that I actually am a little concerned with their competence to do what they're talking about.

Re:Magic Charge

[Gabrill]

Maybe they should get a few pointers from NASA.

Re:Magic Charge

[clbyjack81]

Congratulations, you've vetted out my point. ;-)

After rereading the thread, I realized my post came off as trying to argue with you. That was not my intention. I really was just venting about how ridiculous zero point energy as an energy source. I wish authors and screenwriters would just stop trying to use that term. From the tone of your original post it is obvious you are aware of this reality.

Cheers!

Re:Magic Charge

[AKAImBatman]

No worries! FWIW, at least Atlantis doesn't try to pretend that the ZPMs really work on regular Zero Point Energy. Their construction (as described in the series) consists of a suspended microuniverse from which energy is drawn. Later on they attempt to draw energy from a parallel universe, which didn't work out quite like they planned.

Still a bit outlandish, but good enough for suspension of disbelief. :-)

Frosty Poophole

[Anonymous Coward]

The government's $10 million Frosty Poophole is still far too big! Opponents claim that with such a large poophole, poop extrusion is not possible and they must settle for unshaped lumps being excreted.

Cue The Peacnik Hippie Crowd.

[Anonymous Coward]

With the usual anti-military comments.. Its so predictable when military tech articles come up.

Listen up moderators. These comments are redundant and offtopic and should be modded as such. Read the Slashdot FAQ, it's clear these coments don't belong.

Re:Cue The Peacnik Hippie Crowd.

[pandrijeczko]

Read the Slashdot FAQ, it's clear these coments don't belong.

Read the Book Of Life, especially the chapter on "Finding A Sense Of Humour".

Slashdot's moderation system rewards postings which are "Funny", "Interesting" and "Insightful", not just those that happen to agree with your (presumably) pro-military opinions.

Re:Cue The Peacnik Hippie Crowd.

[Anonymous Coward]

Power to the people! Hell no, we won't go! Free Huey! Free Mumia! Strength to all our oppressed, repressed, and suppressed brothers united in the struggle against the jackbooted thugs of the imperial Zionist hegemony and the fascist overlords of the military-industrial complex! Aztlan forever!

Now where's my "Rage Against the Machine" t-shirt? I have a sorority mixer to get to.

Re:Cue The Peacnik Hippie Crowd.

[ArcherB]

not just those that happen to agree with your (presumably) pro-military opinions. In an attempt to get this back on topic...

This "BAT" research is a good thing. Sure, it's intended for the military, but the technology that is being gained from this will find its way into the civilian sector soon enough, and it's all paid for from our military budget. Maybe this will help those that feel guilty that their tax dollars are being spent to kill people and break things. In this case, they are looking to make a zero emissions vehicle that otherwise, might not be being worked on.

Re:Cue The Peacnik Hippie Crowd.

[pandrijeczko]

This "BAT" research is a good thing.

So is the cure for cancer. And given the choice, I know where I'd want my taxes to be spent.

Re:Cue The Peacnik Hippie Crowd.

[evanbd]

So is the cure for cancer. And given the choice, I know where I'd want my taxes to be spent.

You present a false dichotomy.

I'm generally in favor of reduced defense spending, but research into new capabilities is something I think is worthwhile. I wholeheartedly agree that a cure for cancer would be better than this, but we don't have that choice available. Even if we did, it's likely that a few $M taken from a robotic bat project wouldn't even be close to enough.

We can spend money on both. Whether spending tax money on this is a good idea is mostly unrelated to whether spending tax money on medical research is a good idea. Obviously the two are connected through tax rates and thus the total government funding available, but as long as the projects are small relative to the total fund, they should each be evaluated against the alternative of reducing taxes (or increasing them, depending on your preferred viewpoint), rather than against each other.

We're all (well, mostly) smart people here, capable of evaluating complex choices. Let's at least look at the correct set of choices, rather than a rhetoric-filled politically motivated set of options that don't actually exist.

Re:Cue The Peacnik Hippie Crowd.

[ArcherB]

This "BAT" research is a good thing. So is the cure for cancer. And given the choice, I know where I'd want my taxes to be spent. So are you saying that all renewable energy research dollars should go to cancer research? So we should forget about the global warming thing that will flood our coastlines and cause an ice age or heat age or whatever and concentrate on cancer?

Sorry, but in the real world, the military has no interest in curing cancer. While a grand goal, it is worthless from a military perspective. I think you should give credit where credit is due. The military could have just as easily spent this money on a couple of tanks or half a Raptor. So, rather than bitching about the money not being spent on cancer, you should give credit to the military for supporting MIT and researching technology with dual roles. You want cancer research? You are free to donate to the American Cancer Society. Bonus because it's tax deductible and you can rest easy knowing that your money went to cancer research and not efficient vehicle research. Also, it makes you part of the solution instead of someone bitching about the problem.

**NOTE: I personally believe cancer research is better than GW research. I've seen people die from cancer, never from GW.

Re:Cue The Peacnik Hippie Crowd.

[megaditto]

US Military budget for 2007: 1.2 trillion USD (800M main +400M Iraq/Afganistan supplemental)
US R&D budget for 2007: 0.1 trillion USD (includes health, energy, as well as basic research)

What would be wrong with having these reversed? To put it in some context, the military budget equals to US$ 4,000 per each man, woman, or child in the United States, per year. That's a SHITLOAD of money. Which could buy you flying cars, cold fusion, cure for cancer, teleportation, and 200 year life expectancy off the start.

Note that I am not even counting the many millions of (potentially) productive citizens tied up by the military playing the role of drones, and their potential contribution to our society.

Re:Cue The Peacnik Hippie Crowd.

[fastest fascist]

man, subjects^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H citizens with 200-year life expectancies are the last thing any government wants. That would the age balance of the population. Either you get a large amount of people who are too old to be able to work, but too young to have the decency to die, or you get a lot of people who do continue to work and contribute, but are old enough to be cynical and less than less than enthusiastic about going off to die for their government. Physical fitness is not the only reason it's the kids who fight the wars - they're by definition naïve and therefore perfect cannon fodder. The older you get, the more you start to see how much you have to lose by dying.

Besides, 200 years is plenty of time for citizens to develop agendas of their own... I suspect an old, physically and mentally fit population would be a real bitch to control.

Re:Cue The Peacnik Hippie Crowd.

[fastest fascist]

Eugh. That would *shift* the age balance of the population.

Re:Cue The Peacnik Hippie Crowd.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually given the upcoming energy problems and the choice between "quantum dot solar cells" and a cure for cancer... I'd probably take the solar cells.

Re:Cue The Peacnik Hippie Crowd.

[evanbd]

I don't see any inherent problem with reversing those numbers, or at least moving in that direction (with the obvious caveat that you couldn't make the change overnight). I wasn't attempting to argue the merits of any specific project, but rather to make a point about the style of argument.

My point was that the parent poster was presenting a false dichotomy: funding this specific project vs a cure for cancer. It's far more reasonable to argue about the appropriate size for major categories, and then to divide up within those categories. Or, you could argue whether individual projects are worth funding or not on their own merits. Ideally you'd do some mix of the two.

It's obviously unreasonable to compare this specific, small project against a nonexistant alternative that isn't even of comparable budget. It's a politicizing trick based on a false dichotomy, and as such has no place in intelligent discussion of the issues. Asking the broader questions "what would happen if we spent less on our military?" and "what would happen if we spent more on basic R&D?" and then combining those to get "should we shift the budget from one to the other, and should we raise or lower taxes to change the total?" is entirely reasonable.

Re:Cue The Peacnik Hippie Crowd.

[tacokill]

What would be wrong with having these reversed?

Well, for one thing....the US would instantly be at war and would probably be taken over if our enemies saw us spending almost nothing on our own defense.

Aside from that tiny detail, there is nothing wrong with reversing those numbers. Unfortunately, the US does have enemies that would -gasp!- use lethal force if given the chance. While I agree we could and should spend less, I do not delude myself into thinking we should spend "a pittance" on defense. That is just not a reasonable position in the modern era for a country with the size and influence of the US.

Rightly or wrongly, the US has enemies. Enemies that will kill you (and your family), if given the chance. You should want to protect yourself from that. And that means some defense (ie: a hell of a lot more than .1 trillon - or 100 billion). Good god, man. Have you forgotten the lessons of past wars? It took every little ounce of production from the US to win WWII and lots of ppl at that time vowed never again shall we let ourselves be vulnerable to attack. So we've been building it up ever since that time in hopes that we don't fall behind again.

You see, we've learned that defense has a deterrent effect.

A strong defense = an overpowering military = expensive = less chance of going to war because your enemies can't keep up (and they know it)

Note: I am not saying it's right or wrong. I am simply suggesting that the balance of power is drastically changed when a nation builds up it's military.

Re:Cue The Peacnik Hippie Crowd.

[cliffski]

Which enemies would that be? The last people who 'attacked america' were a dozen guys with boxcutters. Amazingly, the existence of stealth bombers did not dissuade them on bit.
Only the US thinks that all wars can be won by technology. They cannot. If you still want to continue with this belief that your country needs to spend such an obscene amount on weaponry, don't be surprised when your economy is beaten by China and Russia.
Nobody else on earth has tried to 'keep up' with americas military spending for a good 20 years now. Rather than being an effective method to bankrupt the USSR, the USA's military budget is now only effective at brankrupting itself.

If technology won wars, iraq would be firmly under US control, and the US would have won in Vietnam.

Re:Cue The Peacnik Hippie Crowd.

[pandrijeczko]

Then I hope you or anyone close to you ever gets cancer - I'm sure if you witness someone wasting away slowly as a result of it, I'm sure you will change your opinion.

Re:Cue The Peacnik Hippie Crowd.

[pandrijeczko]

Firstly, please do not get me started on global warning. I am fully prepared to accept any evidence that suggests this planet has gone through natural warming and cooling phases in the past because the last Ice Age happened before man ever appeared on the Earth.

Also, whilst I recognise the need to develop renewable energy resources and to recycle more, I refute man-made global warming on the basis that there is no evidence for it - Al Gore needed to fiddle the graphs by 60 years as the basis for any arguments he put across in "An Inconvenient Truth" and the fact is there's a political motivation to it - stop the Third World developing so that cheap imports are maintained to the Western World keeping the population therein fat, dumb and happy, resulting in the rich getting even richer and the poor getting poorer. And that's my view on the whole overblown issue summarised in a few lines.

Therefore, whilst I made no mention of renewable energy sources up until now, I do consider medical advancement to be more more important for the whole of mankind than renewable energy sources based on the fact that people are dying of horrible diseases at this very moment yet there's still going to be oil there for a few more decades.

You are free to donate to the American Cancer Society. Bonus because it's tax deductible and you can rest easy knowing that your money went to cancer research and not efficient vehicle research. Also, it makes you part of the solution instead of someone bitching about the problem.

With all respect to you, I'm British and between 1984 and 1988 I watched my own mother gradually die from liver cancer and my girlfriend's mother die from a brain tumour some 5 years ago. I don't expect any sympathy for stating that but, as a result, I make frequent donations both to Cancer Research UK and to the charitable hospice where she spent her last days. Personally, I don't give a sh*t if that money is tax deductable, it's the fact that I give to a worthy cause that's most important.

No, we don't put *EVERYTHING* into one field of research, we just prioritise things properly, that's all.

Re:Cue The Peacnik Hippie Crowd.

[tacokill]

Only the US thinks that all wars can be won by technology.

All wars ARE (eventually) won by technology. Economic, military, social, etc. Technology is a force multiplier. And not just in military terms either. Productivity, science, etc all benefit from advances in technology.

My previous post simply suggested that military spending can have a drastic influence on the balance of power. In other words, it's overweighted compared with other aspects of power (economic, diplomatic, cultural, etc). And as the Japanese showed in WWII and America has shown in Iraq (wrongheadedly, I might add) that overweighting is for good reason. Do you not think Iraq has been influenced (good or bad) by the overwhelming military force of the US? Of course it has. The country has been turned upside down.

Now ask yourself - is it even possible that the reverse could ever be true (ie: Iraq invading the US)? No. You can't even fathom it. It's so far beyond the realm of possibility that it is laughable. And that's exactly what it's supposed to be. That, in worldview terms, is defense. Enforceable defense. And that is why we spend so much, rightly or wrongly.

The US has not and will not be invaded by a foreign enemy/nation. That is all that counts in the end. A few boxcutters and a handful of nutjobs aren't going to change that, despite the fact the stealth bombers didn't help in that case or any terrorist case for that matter.

Let's be clear though - if "they" try to group up and start an army (which they would need to change the US in a meaningful way), I am betting that stealth bomber will come in handy.

strange picture in my head

[Neotrantor]

When i read the title i thought it meant some sort of collapseable bat that spies carry around... like in back to the future in the 2015 cafe scene

Let me guess

[Anonymous Coward]

We will figure this all out with EU and Israel as partners, and then watch the companies, such as Intel, AMD, and TI, ship the work to China and/or North Korea?

Re:Let me guess

[Tablizer]

We will figure this all out with EU and Israel as partners, and then watch the companies, such as Intel, AMD, and TI, ship the work to China and/or North Korea?

It is cheaper to do raw research there. It makes me wonder why economists claim that high-end education is our comparative advantage. They got some splainin' to do.

Re:Let me guess

[Anonymous Coward]

It is cheaper to do raw research there. Actually it is not. They do not have the same knowledge, so are not capable of doing it the work. Yet. That is why they have a number of spies and students in the west. The goal is to get there by hook or by croak.

Solar power?

[druuna]

I've always thought that bats are nocturnal.......

Re:Solar power?

[Yvan256]

So? All they have to implement a "sleep during the day" mode just like a real bat, which will recharge its batteries.

Re:Solar power?

[Bertie]

Only problem with that is that real bats sleep in nooks and crannies, rather than sprawled out in the sun, so if you see one sunning itself, it might strike you as a bit unusual, which would kinda defeat the purpose of making your spy drone inconspicuous.

Re:Solar power?

[gzerphey]

OK new tactic... lunar power bat. Brilliant!!!!!

Six inch bat?

[SleptThroughClass]

What good is a six inch bat? You're not going to hit one out of the ballpark with that.

Re:Six inch bat?

[owlnation]

What good is a six inch bat? You're not going to hit one out of the ballpark with that.

Maybe Vlad Guerrero could?

Bat metaphors... but one louder.

Bat and Solar energy?

[joestoner]

Bat requirements.

Pigeons next

[TheMeuge]

The idea of a bat-like creature is probably a concern because fixed wing designs will attract more attention.

Basically, they want something that'll look like a bird, fly like a bird, and would be able to engage in surveillance without anyone noticing. The next logical step would be to make a pigeon-like creature, that would be unnoticeable in an urban environment. A few thousand of those in a large city could make enforcing "free speech zones" much easier.

Re:Pigeons next

[CRCulver]

Defense technology research labs are staffed by the same sort of nerds that post here on Slashdot. I don't think it's likely that they are intentionally developing technology that can be used against their own fellow urban Americans.

Re:Pigeons next

[TheMeuge]

I find fault with your logic, because you're assuming that one's beliefs and principles override one's requirement to work in order to feed, clothe, and house themselves and their families.

Re:Pigeons next

[LandDolphin]

Or that some could honestly feel that they are doing something "for the greater good"

Re:Pigeons next

[jhines]

Make them bombers then like the real birds, they crappa all over da place.

Re:Pigeons next

[Nerdposeur]

So the fact that someone is intelligent and systems-minded means that they are also moral and wise?

I cite chemical weapons, communist speech censorship tools, and since this is Slashdot, Microsoft Windows as counter-examples.

"Smart" != "trustworthy."

Re:Pigeons next

[celtic_hackr]

I'm not sure what components they are having problems shrinking. Maybe they just are shopping in the wrong places.

I have a pair of hearing aids that do real-time programatically controlled DSP. The PCB in the hearing aid is so freaking small you need
a microscope to work on it. I know this because I took one apart. The PCB is like 1/8" by 1/4" max. I've seen entire
computers-on-a-chip smaller than a quarter. You could build an entire NAV system in something 2" wide and 6" long easily.
I've seen micro-helicopters in the 4-6" range. So, I'm confused on what parts they are trying to shrink. Perhaps,
they are only talking about one component: the solar charging array. But I can tell you this, if I ever see a bat flying
in the daytime, I'm gonna blow that sucka from the sky! They'd be better off building a bird-of-prey, and if they need 12'
how about building a Condor.

Re:Pigeons next

[kabocox]

Basically, they want something that'll look like a bird, fly like a bird, and would be able to engage in surveillance without anyone noticing. The next logical step would be to make a pigeon-like creature, that would be unnoticeable in an urban environment. A few thousand of those in a large city could make enforcing "free speech zones" much easier.

Don't you mean enforcing government sponsored thought control and censorship much easier?

Re:Pigeons next

[bughunter]

Well, why bother reinventing the pigeon at all? Just attach a camera to a trained pigeon.

You think I'm joking? Paul MacCready tried it. (Scroll down to the last section, regarding Concern for the Environment.)

Re:Pigeons next

[SleptThroughClass]

It doesn't say they are having problems shrinking the components. Looks like the goal of this research is to perform the shrinking. So they're probably going to design some such tiny circuits and reprogram some existing small computers. We'll see. Or actually, if they're successful, maybe we won't see.

Re:Pigeons next

[Idiomatick]

smart > stupid
when it comes to ethics. The only problem is the smart while maybe more ethical have the ability to do alot more harm. While the stupid are relatively powerless with the exception of the president of course.

Re:Pigeons next

[The Great Pretender]

You know, all they have to do is shove a camera and mic in a stuffed pigeon. Stick it to a statue and have it poop once an hour. No one would know it was fake and then all this robotics and flying stuff wouldn't be needed.

Re:Pigeons next

[Knuckles]

It's not Godwin'ing the thread to refer you to the creative nerds working for this fine organization.

Re:Pigeons next

[Gabrill]

Not to mention the same set of people that post here on Slashdot are mixed with the set of people that bring us Viruses and bot-nets.

Re:Pigeons next

[GoodNicksAreTaken]

I left college partly because the only recruiters left hiring after the bubble burst were Raytheon and the Naval Undersea Warfare Center. A handful of geeks I know work or worked for the Navy near Seattle at NUWC. The guy I know that was an Army Ranger before going back to school to finish his CS degree actually has left NUWC to work for Ascentium designing much of Microsoft's website. It isn't unheard of to make career choices based upon principal. I'd certainly be much happier if the non-profit I work for that is involved in "social change" activities paid their geeks a bit better. My bosses entire experience outside of the organization though was supporting a college computer lab and he 2 finger types. The other senior people only have slightly more experience than that and are over paid for their qualifications.

Re:Pigeons next

[evanbd]

Obvious candidates would be navigational sensors and actuators. Good autonomous nav systems need to know where they are, and that's actually surprisingly difficult -- especially if you want it to perform the sorts of aerobatic manuevers that an ornithopter design makes possible. Gyroscopes and accelerometers are currently either very good, or very small, but most emphatically not both. That would be an obvious candidate -- there are no obvious inherent limitations, the options just don't exist commerically at present. If they're using image recognition to help with navigation (you can make do with really awful inertial sensors if you can continuously correct them from an external reference like your visual field -- witness the human inner ear), then that needs quantities of CPU power and image sensors that won't fit in your hearing aid -- but probably are present in your cell phone.

And remember, if you're packing the nav system into something that's "only" 2"x6", you won't come even close to a 12" wingspan -- the weight matters more than the volume, and a 2"x6" nav pack will be too heavy for the wing sizes they want. Remember, by the time you take an off the shelf GPS unit, an off the shelf CPU, off the shelf gyros and accelerometers, off the shelf cameras, an off the shelf radio... you have a large, bulky project by the standards of a bat. A typical 12" wingspan bat will weigh less than 1 oz, and if you want aerobatic performance you'll need to hit a similar weight target. And that includes any motors, actuators, batteries, solar cells, and structure. Suddenly a couple grams for a crude set of gyroscopes would look luxurious.

Re:Pigeons next

[rifter]

I find fault with your logic, because you're assuming that one's beliefs and principles override one's requirement to work in order to feed, clothe, and house themselves and their families.

As David Brancaccio has previously said "Much evil is done in the name of paying the mortgage." Besides which, I have to wonder where things like Carnivore and the Clipper Chip could come from if nerds, perhaps evil nerds (but nerds nonetheless), were not involved in some way. Last I checked processors are not directly designed by managers or policemen.

There is a lot of tech out there that geeks love to hate. Spam generators, DRM and copy protection software, Sony/RIAA rootkits, etc come to mind. But someone has to have made it.

Re:Pigeons next

[rifter]

Make them bombers then like the real birds, they crappa all over da place.

And just like real pigeons and bats, they could crap bugs!

Re:Pigeons next

[rifter]

So, I'm confused on what parts they are trying to shrink. Perhaps,
they are only talking about one component: the solar charging array. But I can tell you this, if I ever see a bat flying
in the daytime, I'm gonna blow that sucka from the sky! They'd be better off building a bird-of-prey, and if they need 12'
how about building a Condor.

I think the idea is that the bat will recharge between missions. So it hides somewhere and "sleeps" while recharging its batteries. Yeah unlikely that a bat would sleep on a mountain or in a tree (unless it's a tree bat), but still. As to your other suggestion, Condors only live in a pretty small area, and that area is generally not the most important area for spying, unless you want to watch the peacenicks and anti-WTO types in California.

Giant bat?

[Mongoose Disciple]

You know, a 12 foot robot bat might be a bit big for spy missions, but maybe it could be repurposed to scaring the hell out of and possibly murdering people.

It's a 12 foot robot bat, man! That'd scare the hell out of me if it came for me in the dark.

Re:Giant bat?

[AKAImBatman]

maybe it could be repurposed to scaring the hell out of and possibly murdering people.

The problem with such psychological tricks is that they are very short lived. Once your enemy realizes what you're throwing at them, they'll piece together their opponent and develop countermeasures. And when we're talking about a 12 foot flying machine, it wouldn't take long for fear to be replaced by, "target that craft and shoot it out of the sky". At which point its effectiveness would drop substantially.

Even if we assume that the weapon has a 100% operational effectiveness (yeah, right) and thus leaves no survivors to tell what happened, the enemy is going to start noticing his increased losses. And when he notices those losses, he's going to change his deployments to counter the problem. i.e. It only takes one sortie where the enemy has a second team hidden in the shadows to give away the secret of your weapon.

Re:Giant bat?

[glwtta]

Hmm... you make some very good points. I'm even beginning to think that maybe a 12-foot murderous mechanical bat might not be an effective weapon.

And it sounded so logical, at first!

Re:Giant bat?

[gmuslera]

If this one starts to be deployed, maybe we should reconsider what are our favorite monsters. The Scary Hellish Giant Spy Bat of Doom definately must be top in all the list.

Re:Giant bat?

[AwaxSlashdot]

The problem with such psychological tricks is that they are very short lived. Once your enemy realizes what you're throwing at them, they'll piece together their opponent and develop countermeasures.

Yes, the trick is short lived ... until you replace those robots that don't frighten them anymore by REAL giant mutant vampire bats. With sharp teeth. All those enemy soldier won't care about this dark giant shape approaching, thinking this is that old robot trick but when the giant mutant vampire bat - with sharp teeth - strikes, it is too late !

Re:Giant bat?

[modecx]

The problem with such psychological tricks is that they are very short lived. Once your enemy realizes what you're throwing at them, they'll piece together their opponent and develop countermeasures. And when we're talking about a 12 foot flying machine, it wouldn't take long for fear to be replaced by, "target that craft and shoot it out of the sky". At which point its effectiveness would drop substantially.

Well, I dunno... The chupacrabra still freaks people out. Who knows if it ever was real or not... As for the flying bat machine, all you'd have to do is periodically capture a few of the enemy's corpses, flay them near places the 12' bat is expected to do its business, and voila... A 12' man eating devil-bat is going to weigh on the enemy's psyche a lot more than a squad of fully armed NAVY SEALs, because they know what to expect out of men.

Re:Giant bat?

[turgid]

How about a 12-foot tall flying Mohamed with laser cannon eyes, and a last-ditch explosive self-destruct mechanism?

Re:Giant bat?

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's a 12 foot robot Batman! That'd scare the hell out of me if it came for me in the dark."

Fixed it for you :)

We Can't Stop Here

[Anonymous Coward]

This is bat country.

COM-BAT? Really?

[Itninja]

Seriously, do they think of a word and then try to find a convoluted way to make it an acronym? That invokes images of a military image/marketing department....
Trey: "Hey Lance, what do you think of COM-BAT?"
Lance: "Trey, I think it's FABULOUS!"

Re:COM-BAT? Really?

[mh1997]

Seriously, do they think of a word and then try to find a convoluted way to make it an acronym?

Trey: "Hey Lance, what do you think of COM-BAT?"

Lance: "Trey, I think it's FABULOUS!

Your example makes no sense. COM-BAT has nothing to do with a Field Artillary Battalion Utility List of Own Unit Support (FABULOUS).

Also....

[Lordfly]

...the bat must also be given a pony whenever it asks, and have an ample supply of ice cream for bad bat-days.

Powered by vibrations on a flying object?

[ramk13]

Wouldn't having it be powered by vibrations make flight stability that much harder? Most of those devices have a mass that is free to move along one axis which has oscillatory motion. Seems like a device like that would dampen wing beats and other motions that would be important for flight.

Re:Powered by vibrations on a flying object?

[hibji]

I would assume a simple latch mechanism to lock the weight while in flight?

Re:Powered by vibrations on a flying object?

[svnt]

No, no, no. It works on the same principle as generating power with a windmill on the roof of your car. The law of inverse thermodynamics.

Re:Powered by vibrations on a flying object?

[neildiamond]

Powered by vibrations... Whoa the army just invented the zero energy dildo!

Next up, the $10M flying hammer

[Lucas123]

Hey, it makes more sense than a bat that flies around in daylight.

Apparently the prototype failed

[pandrijeczko]

The project to develop the prototype of the COM-BAT some five years ago, the Operational Stealth Tiny Robotic Intelligent Combat Helicopter (OSTRICH) just didn't take off.

Re:Apparently the prototype failed

[Anonymous Coward]

The parent is funnier than it appears.

A Better Idea

[xactuary]

1. Instead, how about aluminum baseball bats? They're cheap enough and we have millions of youth who already own one.

2. Reinstate the draft, lower the age of service eligibility, and let terr'ist heads roll.

3. After a 100 years of this, we can smelt the bats into plowshares.

4. Profit!

Don't like my idea? Rats, foiled again.

Re:A Better Idea

[michael_zubitskiy]

Clever. Very clever. Up until the current administration, we were not getting an immediate return on all those brats in public school eating up our tax dollars. By pulling the plug on funding education, we free up those resources to be used as cannon fodder elsewhere. No more screaming urchins in restaurants. No more annoying ragamuffins playing in the middle of my street. No more darn kids unmasking Old Man Jenkins and solving mysteries with their dog. Just the quiet satisfaction of knowing little Timmy is in Iraq somewhere, sneaking up on an Al'Qaeda training camp armed with little else than an aluminium baseball bat. And in case you think we're going to run out of kids... as Jay Leno says, "Crunch all you want - we'll make more!". Somewhere out there is a welfare mom, just waiting to become your own personal baby factory! Apparently, Tom Leykis thinks so! Michael --- Whaddya mean I don't exist?! http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/25/0159250

Re:A Better Idea

[geekgirlandrea]

This has already been tried

Re:A Better Idea

[xactuary]

Precisely my point. Bat-Shit-Crazy times are these.

Alternative approach...

[fahrbot-bot]

The Army's $10 million grant proposal calls for the bat to be six inches in length, weigh four ounces and use just one watt of power. The bat is supposed to be powered by a lithium-ion battery, charged by solar and wind energy, as well as simple vibrations.

Those wacky Army guys. Hell the battery and recharging equipment will weigh more that 4 oz -- especially if powering surveillance *and* flight components.

Wouldn't it just be easier and cheaper to mount the equipment on actual trained bats and let them eat insects? As a bonus, the Guano could be used for munitions - Mmmm Guano...

Personally, I think they're pursuing this project so they can tell people they work in the Bat Cave.

Re:Alternative approach...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, and the place they are trained would be known as Guano-tanamo Bay.

Re:Alternative approach...

[andphi]

Now, how does that fireball spell go again?

Does it matter?

[joeflies]

I thought the whole evolution of technology starts with proving that the design works. If the design is valid, then miniaturizing the design can take place over time. If the initial design doesn't work at all, then don't worry about miniaturizing it later.

Re:Does it matter?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not that simple.

Aerodynamics takes on an entirely new set of rules as you scale down. You cannot take a 747 design and shrink it because past a certain point, the same macro level fluid dynamics don't apply.

One of the challanges to this class of devices has been that insects move more by swimming than flying and you cannot make large scale analogs since they see the air as a gas not almost as a liquid like small flying insets do

Additional Design Requirements Include...

[Anonymous Coward]

While flying, it needs to be able to identify things that it can hang from.
It needs to work in a downpour.
It needs to be completely edible.
It needs to be able to communicate peaceful intentions to any aliens
    that it encounters before destroying them.
It needs to be able to sing the U.S. national anthem at 160 db and not
    be afraid to go for that high note.
It needs to produce more power than it consumes.

I'm sure there are numerous other ridiculous requirements that the military
mental spooge committee that has had our future diverted to them is dreaming up.

Re:Additional Design Requirements Include...

[Anonymous Coward]

Joe L, is that you?

Millions of military dollars

[techpawn]

Versus tennis racket... Tennis racket FTW!

It's like the "fly on the wall" spy equipment that get squished before it gathers any actual information...

Wait...

[Orleron]

Are they making an African or European bat?

In other news...

[psydeshow]

The Center for Subjective Microelectronics announced an robotic dolphin that is "pretty small, considering."

Seriously, can these COM-BAT guys get a less academic-sounding name for their center? What are those words even supposed to mean, outside of the dumb military acronym?

That's not a weapon....

[penguin_dance]

"The Army's $10 million grant proposal calls for the bat to be six inches in length, weigh four ounces and use just one watt of power. The bat is supposed to be powered by a lithium-ion battery, charged by solar and wind energy, as well as simple vibrations."

....it's a sex toy!

And they're worried about it being too big! Sound like some of the spam I've been getting....

beats the last thing the military tried with bats

[circletimessquare]

the bat bomb

sounds like the plot of a bad saturday morning cartoon

What this project needs RIGHT NOW

[kjoonlee]

There are several things that this project needs RIGHT NOW in order to be successful.

First, a whizkid plucked out from high school, who will be separated from his mommy for the first time ever.
Second, a crazy roommate who doesn't care about authority figures
Third, a mysterious man who lives in their closet
Fourth, an annoying dude who tries to suck up to his professor
Fifth, a charming young lady, interested in the whizkid, who just happens to be hyperactive
Sixth, an ambitious and immoral professor who's tricking the innocent to UNKNOWINGLY CONTRIBUTE to a MILITARY PROJECT
Seventh, said professor's inordinate hatred for popcorn -- oh wait...

Re:What this project needs RIGHT NOW

[marquis111]

You forgot to mention the HIJINKS/HILARITIES that inevitably ensue.

Re:What this project needs RIGHT NOW

[jollyreaper]

There are several things that this project needs RIGHT NOW in order to be successful.

First, a whizkid plucked out from high school, who will be separated from his mommy for the first time ever.
Second, a crazy roommate who doesn't care about authority figures
Third, a mysterious man who lives in their closet
Fourth, an annoying dude who tries to suck up to his professor
Fifth, a charming young lady, interested in the whizkid, who just happens to be hyperactive
Sixth, an ambitious and immoral professor who's tricking the innocent to UNKNOWINGLY CONTRIBUTE to a MILITARY PROJECT
Seventh, said professor's inordinate hatred for popcorn -- oh wait... Hey, I think I've seen that anime.

Watch Your Words

[Skeetskeetskeet]

You said KISS along with "bat"...Gene Simmons is sure to strike up a deal with the DOD now... The KISS Bat - flies, glides, blinds its enemies by spitting blood....new from the U.S. Army!

In other news-

[Naughty Bob]

Army's clue-bat still many, many times too small.

for the full "bat" effect

[superwiz]

incorporate the power-from-blood: http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/07/22/1323258

Typical lousy DoD requirements - this one's hosed

[finlandia1869]

As an acquisition guy, I hate this kind of stuff. This is how DoD projects go way over budget and behind schedule. Instead of "give us a long-range recon platform that the enemy is unlikely to notice," you get "give us a long-range recon platform that's stealthy, looks and flies like a bat, weighs this much, is this big, consumes this much power, can do all this other stuff that we think would be cool, etc., and by the way, you'll need to develop technology that's multiple generations ahead of what you have now." The former lends itself to more realistic requirements, useful incremental development, lower costs, and the like. The latter creates expensive messes.

Well, they can't use BAT-COM.

[AltGrendel]

I think that DC Comics has a copyright on that name.

Re:Well, they can't use BAT-COM.

[rifter]

I think that DC Comics has a copyright on that name.

You're thinking about trademarks, not copyrights.

These sort of errors are rampant 'round here. Could it be that slashdotterrs don't understand Intellectual Property?

Just wait for it...

[Ihmhi]

Unless bats are everywhere in the world, this thing is going to be pretty useless for the "blending in as a bat" aspect. I can just see Greenpeace up in arms after FARC or something goes around shooting bats with flamethrowers to weed out any "spies". *eyeroll*

Pterodactyl

[genka]

Why not just ask for a robo pterodactyl instead?

Giant bat countermeasures

[SleptThroughClass]

So you're saying it would be assassins, ninjas, and pirates vs Giant Robot Bat?

Re:Giant bat countermeasures

[Anonymous Coward]

with a nuclear core.

Trying to actually deploy Batman, eh?

[Ortega-Starfire]

Ah yes, This worked great at Gotham City.

"I'm telling you, it was a giant BAT that attacked me!"

Why Bat? Did they dump the stealth 3-Toed Sloth?

[gsgriffin]

I'm wondering why the talk about a bat other than Com-bat sounds like a killer name. Wouldn't be more stealthy to have a three-toed sloth slowly moving through the trees. Nobody would suspect it... except maybe when spotted in Iran. Personally, I'd go for the Sea Gull. It survives everywhere in the world, blends in during the day to the billion others, and hits its target almost everytime!

Re:That's not a weapon....

[Anonymous Coward]

....it's a sex toy!
And they're worried about it being too big! If 12' sounds better to you than 6", you're doing it too much.

ep;!X!

[Anonymous Coward]

pro"spects Are very

In other news

[einhverfr]

Bald Eagles have been listed to the State Department list of international terrorist organizations after several members of this group disabled and destroyed several of COM-BAT's in various countries in North America. John Negroponte stated "We believe that this group, which typically uses airborn counter-intelligence tactics has an international reach and has demonstrated a willingness to attack members of our armed forces, including such flying robots." Addressing those who have complained that the bald eagle is the official US bird, Negroponte added "It has now become clear that terrorists have infiltrated even this historic ally of ours and, like Saddam, we must eliminate them. Later today, we will propose legislation to Congress changing the national bird to the pidgeon."

The state department is said to be considering adding various other carnivorous birds to the list as well.

Re:In other news

[sapphire wyvern]

Later today, we will propose legislation to Congress changing the national bird to the pidgeon.

Specifically, the Warrantless Wiretapping Stool Pidgeon.

M.O.S.Q.U.I.T.O.

[chriscoolc]

The solution: Massive Offensive Siphoning and Quite Unimaginable Insectacious Technology Oh-my-god-it's-a-giant-mosquito!

Brits lead the way?

[Frizzled]

U.K. Special Forces has been using something like this for a few years now:

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/01/72543

Their $3,000 WASP is a little cheaper than a $10,000,000 BAT ...

_f

Re:Brits lead the way?

[Skye16]

Well, keep in mind that they have a completely different set of CONOPS from each other. One is a spy drone meant to be sent out for days and days on end (not coming home), and the other is for saying hello to a sniper in a sniper nest with a C4 explosive. One is supposed to be controlled via AI, and the other via a dude with an xbox controller.

I can see a use for both, but I can't see the WASP being quite as useful as the BAT - at least from a CONOPS standpoint.

That said, I don't think the BAT will ever get off the ground, so the WASP will probably win purely by virtue of being the only contestant left standing :D

For a budget of 5 million US Dollars

[vorlich]

I will personally train as many real bats as they need.

This Just In...

[a42]

An anonymous spokesman for the Army has stated that they also want a pony.

testt

[Anonymous Coward]

test

Further requirements

[Anonymous Coward]

And it must have a telepathic user interface!! And it must be able to CLEAN YOUR TEETH WHILE YOU SLEEP!!!

*slap*

Here Bat; Hear Bat :

[Anonymous Coward]

I have some gnats. KABOOM !

Fuck Bush

No live bats like the live squirrels?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not use real bats like they did with the squirrels in Iran?

Maybe the squirrels didn't work out? :-)

Solar powered ... bat?

[G3ckoG33k]

Bats are birds, NOT.

Re:Solar powered ... bat?

[An ominous Cow art]

Bats are bugs.

oblig. Psych

[statemachine]

"Good call on the mini-bat."

One watt?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are they crazy? Obviously the same guys that write these requirements are writing the requirements for recent IT work... "10 years RoR development experience, and at minimum 6 years experience implementing server 2008 in an HPCC configuration..."

Are you kidding?

[rantingkitten]

When these defense labs come up with "non lethal" weapons and so forth for use against the enemy, what enemy do you think they're talking about? Their own fellow citizens. You don't really think soldiers are going to jump out of their Humvees and helicopters in a foreign warzone armed with sticky nets and seizure lights, do you?

Smart not related to ethical

[Nerdposeur]

I disagree. Smart helps you decide "how should I accomplish what I want to do?" Ethical helps you decide "should I put my interests ahead of somebody else's?"

These two questions are not related. Being smart may lead you to be selfish in more subtle ways, but it doesn't automatically make you a nicer person.

Re:Smart not related to ethical

[Idiomatick]

Bull, smarts gives you foresight. Foresight gives you ethics. Before you decide "how should I accomplish what I want to do?" you have to ask "What do i want to do?" and you'll make a better choice if you are smarter. I'm not saying this is 100% of course, but on average smarter people make better more ethically sound decisions.

Re:Smart not related to ethical

[tukkayoot]

Exactly. Intelligence may not motivate you to act in a virtuous manner (you can be an absolutely ingenious psychopath), but it does allow you to expand your domain of ethical consideration, because you may be more inclined to make connections that a less intelligent person won't. Also, strong critical thinking skills can allow one to break out of the herd mentality and groupthink that can allow injustice to thrive.

Re:Smart not related to ethical

[MrNaz]

smarts gives you foresight. Foresight gives you ethics.

I'm sorry, but neither rationale nor observation in the field support either of these relationships. Spam-bots are written by smart people. Where's the foresight or ethics in spamming? Smart people designed chemical weapons.

It is quite possible to be smart and devoid of ethics. Smart people with no ethics run Wall Street. Smart people with no ethics are headhunted and encouraged to develop their smarts and suppress their ethics by industrial lobby groups such as petrochemicals and big pharma. I'm sorry, but I sadly have to report that smarts and ethics, in my observations and experience, have absolutely no relationship whatsoever. The very basis of capitalism is that one must do what one can do, not what one should do. If it's legal but immoral, do it, if it makes you richer. It's the American way.

Re:Smart not related to ethical

[Idiomatick]

You said you see no relationship then go on to show how much more pressure the smart are under to be unethical. Chemical weapons and spam bots are handy examples HOWEVER this isn't common. There are only a few major bot-nets and even less chemical weapons in the world. This means only a few of the i'm sure many capable intelligent people have taken those paths. You would need to show a study showing intelligent people are equally prone to immoral decisions (a cursory googling found me no study for either side). But i find i'm comfortable betting that stupid people would be more willing to murder, rape, rob a bank or beat their wifes than intelligent people. Reason being, all those things are stupid things to do.

Re:Smart not related to ethical

[MrNaz]

You would need to show a study showing intelligent people are equally prone to immoral decisions (a cursory googling found me no study for either side). But i find i'm comfortable betting that stupid people would be more willing to murder, rape, rob a bank or beat their wifes than intelligent people. Reason being, all those things are stupid things to do.

I said there is *no* relationship, not that there is one in the other direction. If you think that only stupid people lie, cheat, steal, deceive and exploit then you must be living in an alternate universe, one that I wish I was living in. I pointed out a few examples, but the world is rife with examples of smart people being immoral. Let me point out the legal profession, oil companies, SCO, Wall Street Bankers, insurance companies, sweatshop operators, any company engaging in willing environmental destruction for marginal increases in profit (such as paper mills, steel smelters) and the RIAA. All those groups contain people who are smart, but are still doing things that they may not even consider the immorality of. Why? Because one can be smart and still have an utterly broken moral compass.

A smart person is just as likely to be immoral as a dumb person, only they won't be as blatantly bone-headed about it like the wife-beating rednecks you mention, who, conversely, won't have the smarts to embezzle millions like the guys in Arthur Anderson, Enron or WorldCom did. Being smart isn't some kind of righteousness card, smart or dumb, one has to guard one's soul against the temptations of immorality. To think otherwise is intellectual arrogance.

Re:Smart not related to ethical

[Idiomatick]

"I said there is *no* relationship, not that there is one in the other direction."
That IS what I said, if there is no relationship that would show "intelligent people are equally prone to immoral decisions"....

And then you go to list a small group of people again. And in situations where they are paid massive sums of money to be immoral. The fact that they need a million dollar a year wage is a good sign. The reason i suggested a study is because allegory gets you nowhere, i've seen a monk punch a guy in the face, that doesn't mean monks are angry violent people. The only studies i found showed a .2 correlation between intelligence and morality

And "Being smart isn't some kind of righteousness card" I never said anything of the sort! I said there was a correlation, It is NOT so black and white, being smart does NOT prohibit evil, it just makes it a little less likely.

How about this, if a stupid person gets sent to prison for something theres a certain chance he'll do it again. If a smart person gets imprisoned the chance of him doing it again are lower. Agree/Disagree?

Re:That's not a weapon....

[The End Of Days]

If 6" sounds better to you than 12", you have no future in porn.

It's big Enough

[Eddy_D]

It's big enough for reconnaissance, after all wasn't it Teddy Roosevelt who said;

"Speak softly, and carry a large bat"

Or something to that effect...

Bat Mitzvah

[greyhueofdoubt]

So when is the Bat Mitzvah?

-b

Re:KISS principle

[neildiamond]

"Why don't they ask for something that follows the KISS principle..." Yeah! Gene Simmon's tongue could be used for reconnaissance on the enemy's wives and daughters. Plus KISS and bats just go well together.

Michigan's may be too big but ...

[Tired and Emotional]

the rival project at Minnesota's Center for Observing and Recording Kites (CORK-BAT) has a device that scores a home run on the Army's requirements.

Why not a (robotic) swallow?

[grshutt]

English or African, it doesn't matter. The sensors could be carried on a strand of creeper.

spy bat...

[simplerThanPossible]

Rival scientists renewed their bid for a "spy ball", as smaller, more agile and capable of greater velocity.

"A spy bat", they explained, "is a stupid idea. Not very stealthy at all. We really don't know how those guys got the contract in the first place."

Exactly

[Nerdposeur]

MrNaz is exactly right. Wherever you see petty violence, you may find an evil idiot. But when you see thwarted justice systems, insurance scams, terrorism, spambots, stock market fraud, genocide and other large-scale evil, you can be sure that the people behind it are both evil and smart. Their evil tendencies give them their goals, and their smarts help them deceive or outwit those who stand in their way.

Maybe nobody else in this discussion shares my enthusiasm for C.S. Lewis, but he said something very interesting on the subject of free will in people and angels or demons.

When we have understood about free will, we shall see how silly it is to ask, as somebody once asked me: 'Why did God make a creature of such rotten stuff that it went wrong?' The better stuff a creature is made of --the cleverer and stronger and freer it is--then the better it will be if it goes right, but also the worse it will be if it goes wrong. A cow cannot be very good or very bad; a dog can be both better and worse; a child better and worse still; an ordinary man, still more so; a man of genius, still more so; a superhuman spirit best--or worst--of all.

it's already available at toy's r us

[Anonymous Coward]

it's called the air hogs aeroace, it's sold at toy's r us, made by a chinese company called silverlite, and modded by millions of us who dont want to spend more then US $29.95 to fly. the largest problem with planes this small is wind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aero_Ace

for those of you who desire a new addiction check out this micro rtf forum, it has many of the designers of toy planes posting on it, not to mentions many of the members own designs reusing the electonics from the toy planes.

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=401484